Alf, I find my focus accuracy to be so much better with my NEX 7 vs. my Pentax K-5 (with the Katz Eye split prism screen) that I am now using all of my Pentax limited lenses almost exclusively on my NEX and will be selling my K-5 as soon as I get around to it. Possibly the next generation of EVFs (which we may see on the NEX 7n to be announced next month) may partially mitigate some of the issues you have mentioned using your NEX cameras).

I use both (Olympus E-M5 and Nikon D800E) and while I prefer the "presence" of the OVF, I really like the ability to dial in exposure adjustment with the more-or-less WYSIWYG view of the Oly EVF, though sometimes the ability to see detail in dark shadows is a pain.

With an EVF that has the histogram right in the viewfinder, does it really matter that you can't see great detail in the shadows? If your curve is inbounds, you've got the capture. So what if you couldn't see it live? With an OVF, you may be able to see the shadow detail, but you won't know if you've captured it until after you shoot and go back to review the image.

I'm shooting a GH2 and would put its EVF up against any mid price range OVF, especially for low light because it amps up and you CAN see what's in those shadows.

Logged

I really enjoy using old primes on my m4/3 camera. There's something about having to choose your aperture and actually focusing your camera that makes it so much more like... like... PHOTOGRAPHY!

Alf, I find my focus accuracy to be so much better with my NEX 7 vs. my Pentax K-5 (with the Katz Eye split prism screen) that I am now using all of my Pentax limited lenses almost exclusively on my NEX and will be selling my K-5 as soon as I get around to it. Possibly the next generation of EVFs (which we may see on the NEX 7n to be announced next month) may partially mitigate some of the issues you have mentioned using your NEX cameras).

ok, I was comparing with RF. Anyway the results are dependent on the user-camera combo, so its hard to generalize (as I might have done). Thanks for sharing experiences.

The small matter of metering and correct exposure is utter trivial compared to having a tool that lets you see and compose a photo.

Strange experiences you must have had, since I never had problems to see and compose a photo on my EVF. Moreover, I consider achieving accurate exposure a painful process with my DSLR, and metering a completely unnecesary and obsolete step in any modern photography workflow.

But the future is bright. When those kids point and shooting with their smartphones today want to get more seriously into photography, and they have to decide wether they prefer to: meter, choose exposure, click, and post-visualize vs pre-visualize and click with an EVF, the VF of the future will be chosen.

Strange experiences you must have had, since I never had problems to see and compose a photo on my EVF. Moreover, I consider achieving accurate exposure a painful process with my DSLR, and metering a completely unnecesary and obsolete step in any modern photography workflow.

But the future is bright. When those kids point and shooting with their smartphones today want to get more seriously into photography, and they have to decide wether they prefer to: meter, choose exposure, click, and post-visualize vs pre-visualize and click with an EVF, the VF of the future will be chosen.

No doubt that the future VF will be a form of EVF? Still we are allowed to hate todays poor implementations because they impose restrictions in creating photographs.

Please let me know when you have compared the below photographic situations between a M9 (or a RD-1) and a modern EVF such as the NEX-7:

Btw; I have used NEX 5n and are now using NEX-7 as well as M9. The NEXs are great cameraes except for VF and manual handling. Their VFs are not good for streat, nightscapes and snowscapes. In paricular the last is a big shortcoming living in an area that are covered by snow several months a year

Our first impressions of the VF-4 are very positive - it gives an experience that comes remarkably close to shooting with a conventional optical finder, but with the advantage of a detailed overlay of shooting information, including such things as electronic levels and a live histogram. The display lag is minimal (Olympus claims a mere 32ms) ...

This is about one fifth or less than the reaction times reported for Olympic sprinters at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_chronometry and less than the shutter lag listed for any SLR at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_lag where the Nikon F6 at 37ms still edges out any DSLR. TO put it another way, it is about the lag between successive frame on NTSC TV rate of 30fps (33ms between frames) and less than the frame lag of the motion picture standard of 24fps (42ms between frames).

Even with my first generation G1 it's just not a real world issue. Not for me anyway.

Personally I just don't understand the view that EVF's get in the way and impose restrictions in creating photographs. It's all about visualisation and I personally have no problem visualising the image through my EVF.

I do have two very low light issues with my G1...

1. It acts like a torch shining into my eye.2. It wont display things that are clearly visible by eye. I assume it's a DR/contrast issue.

Btw; I have used NEX 5n and are now using NEX-7 as well as M9. The NEXs are great cameraes except for VF and manual handling. Their VFs are not good for streat, nightscapes and snowscapes. In paricular the last is a big shortcoming living in an area that are covered by snow several months a year

I didn't try a NEX, but with an Olympus EPL1 + VF2 there is no viewfinder problem for me on the snow (I can't see much on the rear screen though).

Where I find it less optimal is with big DR scenes, as wrote Michael ; the EVF shows the jpeg with crushed blacks, which is unpractical if there are significant shadows to include in the composition. This should be treated with auto-shadow lighting soon, I hope (it will make crappy jpegs of course, but should be useful for framing such scenes).

There is no such problem on a DSLR ground glass, but as Guillermo I find that not having real-time exposure feedback is a bigger one. Could the future be the addition of a LCD HUD to the ground glass? Sounds less probable, Occam-wise.

I've found that with the EVF of my GH2, I can improve my action photos (probably very slightly) by framing with my right eye and watching for my shot timing with my left eye. I shoot when I see the shot I want with my left eye without worrying about what is actually showing in the EVF. You can supplement this by putting the camera in multi-shot mode and firing in bursts.

I don't know what the delay in the GH2 is. I started this practice when I had a Dimage A2; it it had a very long delay, probably over 250ms. In any event, I doubt I can respond and push a shutter is 32ms.

Logged

I really enjoy using old primes on my m4/3 camera. There's something about having to choose your aperture and actually focusing your camera that makes it so much more like... like... PHOTOGRAPHY!

Used the Epson RD-1 for a while again now. Wow, what a revelation with its super clear 1:1 finder. I can look through finder with one eye, and use my other eye for full view with zero lag. Going back to an EVF would be like removing my glasses inside a smoke filled Lavvo being stupendously drunk and missing sleep for a few days .

I still believe many of he pro-EVF havent tried good OVFs, their simply believing the EVFs are how its supposed to be.

Still don't hate the EVFs, their simply just first poor tries with lag and adding a layer so that the human brain cannot use its power to dynamically adjust to the view and see what out there. Basically their trying to fool the consumer into believing that the photographic process made by a human can be replaced by automated processes. We might end there, but that requires several magnitudes of improved local processing power. Also, that would IMO remove the joy of the creative photo process.

I still believe many of he pro-EVF havent tried good OVFs, their simply believing the EVFs are how its supposed to be.

On the contrary, considering the rather high average level of age and/or experience in this forum, it seems far more likely that most of us have considerable experience with OVF's, going back to the larger ones of the manual focus era, whereas a number of the anti-EVF posters have little or no experience with the current state of the art in EVFs, or have a preference for OVF's that is based largely on familiarity and the barrier of learning how to best use a new tool.

However, for subjects that are not moving quickly I find the EVF allows me to get a better photograph if only for the reason that it allows more precise focus. The percentage of critically focused images that I get using an EVF and a combination of magnified view and focus peaking is significantly higher..

I have to agree. I like using some very excellent vintage and soviet-era lenses (Jena, Jupiter, and Mir) with my Sony A77, as I did with the OM-D. With the Sonys focus peaking and excellent EVF I can actually shoot street photography with a degree of confidence.

Still don't hate the EVFs, their simply just first poor tries with lag and adding a layer so that the human brain cannot use its power to dynamically adjust to the view and see what out there. Basically their trying to fool the consumer into believing that the photographic process made by a human can be replaced by automated processes.

I have found on many pro-OVF a great interest in seeing the world through the VF as the world actually is. The point is that taking a picture is not a process intended to see the world, but a process to capture the world. And regarding capture, I find an EVF much more accurate than an OVF (realtime exposure, 100% framing, accurate focus). To see the world with an EVF you just need to put your eyes a couple of cms away from the VF.

I have found on many pro-OVF a great interest in seeing the world through the VF as the world actually is. The point is that taking a picture is not a process intended to see the world, but a process to capture the world. And regarding capture, I find an EVF much more accurate than an OVF (realtime exposure, 100% framing, accurate focus). To see the world with an EVF you just need to put your eyes a couple of cms away from the VF.

Regards

+1. After you have adjusted to the technology and have developed a sense of how what you see in the EVF compares to what will be in the file, there is nothing like being able to dial in highly accurate exposure adjustments on the fly

I have found on many pro-OVF a great interest in seeing the world through the VF as the world actually is. The point is that taking a picture is not a process intended to see the world, but a process to capture the world. And regarding capture, I find an EVF much more accurate than an OVF (realtime exposure, 100% framing, accurate focus). To see the world with an EVF you just need to put your eyes a couple of cms away from the VF.

Regards

On accuracy:

Realtime exposure: Probably. So do the EVFs have the needed dynamic range to let me see the potential of the RAW?

100% framing: In theory definitely yes. In practice I have been disappointed with all my EVFs, since this was supposed to be one of the big advantages. Seems like I have to crop / adjust as much as with my RF. Probably my own mistakes though.

Accurate focus: No, in fact on focal lengths 90mm and below the RF is more accurate than EVF on MF. As proven by M users that have both. I also prefer the focus by RF on a M9 over the EVF on NEX-7, and have much better accuracy.

But again, in theory the EVFs should have an advantage in capturing the world, but todays implementations are IMO to poor. And again all this is very trivial compared to seeing, composing and creating a photo.

Realtime exposure: Probably. So do the EVFs have the needed dynamic range to let me see the potential of the RAW?

I don't know what the DR of my G1's EVF is but what I do know is that I can have an in view histogram and when taking a difficult shot to meter I'm more likely to get a good exposure first time with my G1 and its in view histogram than with my 5D. With my 5D I'll have to take the shot and then check to see if I've blown my highlights, dial in compensation as appropriate if I have and shoot again.

100% framing: In theory definitely yes. In practice I have been disappointed with all my EVFs, since this was supposed to be one of the big advantages. Seems like I have to crop / adjust as much as with my RF. Probably my own mistakes though.

Accurate focus: No, in fact on focal lengths 90mm and below the RF is more accurate than EVF on MF. As proven by M users that have both. I also prefer the focus by RF on a M9 over the EVF on NEX-7, and have much better accuracy.

No matter how many times I read that RF's are more accurate I simply do not believe it. A RF more accurate than focusing with an EVF and x10 zoom when you can choose and see exactly what your focusing on? Not a chance. Want to focus on someones eye at f1.4 with a RF? Difficult to not a chance. Not unless the eye is very big in your VF. With an EVF and x10 zoom you can do it and in fact you can focus on the point of an eyelash if you want or on any point along its length when that eyelash isn't even visible through your RF. Fact is (IMVHO) you can do things with an EVF that are simply impossible with a RF. Plus of course unlike a RF the EVF doesn't drift out of alignment and require fettling with a screwdriver. I sold my RF's years ago.

But again, in theory the EVFs should have an advantage in capturing the world, but todays implementations are IMO to poor. And again all this is very trivial compared to seeing, composing and creating a photo.

IMVHO my first generation MFT G1's EVF is only deficient in two main ways. Firstly in very low light, almost darkness, it fails to display what is still visible by eye. Secondly in almost darkness I find my G1 unusable as even with the EVF brightness turned down for best effect it still acts like a torch shining directly into my eye. If those two things could be fixed it'd be damn near perfect... and I've yet to see any debris or live bugs crawling around in my EVF unlike every OVF equipped SLR/DSLR I've ever owned.

No matter how many times I read that RF's are more accurate I simply do not believe it. A RF more accurate than focusing with an EVF and x10 zoom when you can choose and see exactly what your focusing on? Not a chance. Want to focus on someones eye at f1.4 with a RF? Difficult to not a chance. Not unless the eye is very big in your VF. With an EVF and x10 zoom you can do it and in fact you can focus on the point of an eyelash if you want or on any point along its length when that eyelash isn't even visible through your RF. Fact is (IMVHO) you can do things with an EVF that are simply impossible with a RF. Plus of course unlike a RF the EVF doesn't drift out of alignment and require fettling with a screwdriver. I sold my RF's years ago.

Thanks for your (and others) patience and well though of answers,

However on the focus I can only repeat "don't confuse me with facts, Ive made up my mind" .

You really feel passionately about this, so I'm hesitant to draw this out any further, but since I took the time to read your linked blog post I'm going to give you my thoughts anyway.

It seems to me the reason, if any, that RF focusing may be more accurate than live view on the M 240 as indicated in the blog you linked to is only because magnified live view on the M 240 is only in the center area and the area of magnification can not be moved around like on many other cameras with an EVF. So rather than see this as a shortfall of focusing with EVF's in general, I see this as merely a knock on Leica's implementation of live view on the M 240. If you could place the area of magnified live view on the spot in your image where you wanted the center of focus, I have no doubt that magnified live view would be as accurate or more accurate than the range finder mechanism.